NATO Enlargement (Hansard, 14 July 1997)

§ 5. Liz Blackman
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress towards NATO enlargement. [6511]

§ Mr. George Robertson
Last week's NATO summit decided to invite the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland to begin accession talks. The alliance expects to extend further invitations in coming years to nations willing and able to assume the responsibilities and obligations of membership and as NATO determines that the inclusion of those nations would serve the overall political and strategic interests of the alliance and that the inclusion would enhance overall European security and stability.

§ Liz Blackman
I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. Given that NATO membership, once granted, is irreversible, does he agree that it is vital that we manage the expectations of future applicants carefully and that NATO retains control over future enlargement?

§ Mr. Robertson
My hon. Friend makes a valid and practical point: once NATO membership has been granted, it is an irreversible fact. As we made clear at last week's NATO summit in Madrid, NATO is a military alliance, not a political club. That has been the key to its success over the past 48 years and it is one of the main reasons why so many European countries want to become members. In the long run, further NATO enlargement will serve the interests of the alliance and this country, but decisions on candidates cannot be a matter for short-termism, politics or the pursuit of national agendas. It is a matter of acute importance, and the alliance's military effectiveness is what matters to all of us.

§ Sir Peter Emery
First, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that, to show our friendship towards those three countries, Britain will take a leading role and perhaps be the first to sign the protocol which will appear in October and the ratification in due course? Secondly, those three countries are only observers to the North Atlantic Assembly, which is the political wing of NATO. Will he advise assembly members now to admit them as full members?

§ Mr. Robertson
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his helpful remarks. This is not a partisan issue and I hope that the whole House agrees that last week's membership invitation to the three countries was in the interests of the alliance and that it will be applauded throughout the House. The chairman of the North Atlantic Assembly, Senator Roth, addressed last week's summit and was strongly applauded for his point of view about the importance of maintaining the parliamentary connection with the North Atlantic Assembly over the years. It is not a matter for the Government whether the new applicant members will be instantly admitted to the North Atlantic Assembly. I dare say that the assembly itself would want to make that decision.
I hope that this country will be among the first to ratify, once the protocols have been agreed by the three countries. As the Prime Minister said last week, the House will first want an opportunity to debate that matter.

§ Ms Squire
I welcome the agreement on NATO enlargement that was reached at last week's summit and 9 pay tribute to the part the Secretary of State played in it. Does he agree that it was also significant that enlargement was welcomed by the President of Ukraine and that, with the charter on co-operation and consultation recently drawn up with Ukraine and the NATO-Russia Founding Act it is a significant development in the promotion of stability and security in Europe?

§ Mr. Robertson
I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. In many ways, last week's summit will go down in history as the defining moment for those of us in Europe who have lived for the day when tension would be reduced and security enhanced. We are not talking about a small enlargement; three countries will be admitted to the alliance if the invitation is taken up. It is the biggest expansion of the alliance so far. As my hon. Friend said, side by side with that development into former Warsaw pact territory is the new agreement signed with the Ukraine and the NATO-Russia Founding Act, which was signed only a few weeks before in Paris. We live today in more secure and certain times than any other generation since the second world war.

§ Sir George Young
The House will recall that, when the Prime Minister made a statement about NATO enlargement last week, he was pressed on the issue of cost several times.

§ Mr. MacShane
Reading.

§ Madam Speaker
Order. It is in order for those at the Dispatch Box to read. The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) has been here long enough to know that.

§ Sir George Young
Does the Secretary of State recall the Prime Minister's assertion on that occasion? He said that he saw no reason … why there should be a real-terms increase in NATO expenditure at all".—[Official Report, 9 July 1997; Vol. 297, c. 945.] The Secretary of State has just described the process as the biggest ever expansion of NATO. Upon reflection, would he like to qualify the Prime Minister's assertion?

§ Mr. Robertson
The right hon. Gentleman really should know better. The burden of cost associated with expanding the alliance will come largely from the three new member countries because they will be expected to bear the infrastructure burdens that will be created. It is much too early to establish the full costs now, but the Government believe that they will be manageable within existing budgets. We shall see what happens in due course. In any event, that issue would not have been a moderating influence on the decision, which was taken for reasons other than cost.
At present, Britain's net annual contribution to NATO in the civil, military and infrastructure fields is about £155 million—which is rather less than 1 per cent. of the total defence budget. I see no reason why that figure should rise significantly in real terms.

§ Mr. Skinner
In the old days, we used to call for the disbanding of NATO and the Warsaw pact. Is it not odd that, now that three former Warsaw pact countries have jumped on the NATO bandwagon and another half dozen 10 countries want to join the queue, British taxpayers have to pay more money to enlarge NATO when our supposed enemies are enemies no more? The truth is that there will be an additional cost, which my right hon. Friend said would be borne "largely"—I think that that is the word he used—by the new member countries. That means that, despite the expansion, those countries will cost the British taxpayer more money.

§ Mr. Robertson
I know that my hon. Friend agrees that the robust defence of this nation is imperative. Our championing of that cause is one of the reasons we have done so well and why the crowd opposite were slung out of office. The Warsaw pact has gone, partly because of the collective security and defence policies for which NATO has stood over the years. We believe in collective defence and collective security, and the expansion of NATO will provide a degree of certainty for future generations.